Martina Navratilova criticized Novak Djokovic after the world No. 1 claimed that "male tennis players should be awarded more prize money than their female counterparts," according to Ziegler & Flatman of the LONDON TIMES.
All grand slam tournaments "have paid equal money to both genders since Wimbledon bowed to pressure in 2007, but top male players on the ATP tour can still expect to earn more than their female equivalents."
Djokovic made his comments after Raymond Moore, the Indian Wells tournament director, suggested that the Women’s Tennis Association was a "lucky organization" that "rides on the coat-tails" of the men. Navratilova, the nine-time Wimbledon singles champion, said, "Novak Djokovic, as much as I love him, clearly doesn’t understand why, when women and men play in combined tournaments, they must be paid equally. I thought we settled that issue years ago."
Wimbledon confirmed that "it had no plans to re-examine its prize money distribution." Virginia Wade, the last British woman to win the Wimbledon singles title, believes Djokovic’s comments about prize money were simply because of "his nose being put out of joint" after Moore mentioned Federer and Nadal by name, but not him. Wade said, "I think Novak said what he did because the tournament director, in his initial very foolish remarks, mentioned Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal but didn’t include Novak in the sentence" (LONDON TIMES, 3/22). The AP reported Indian Wells tournament Owner Larry Ellison announced that Moore "was quitting" as CEO and tournament director.
Ellison said that "Moore informed him of his decision to quit when they spoke earlier in the day." Ellison said that "he understands Moore’s decision" (AP, 3/22).
NOT THE SAME: In London, Matthew Syed opined Djokovic and Co. subsidize equal pay with their brilliance -- "and it should end."
The 2008 Wimbledon final "was a battle for the ages." Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer "duelled and danced for four hours and 48 minutes, many of them so compelling that they are carved in collective consciousness." In '14, Federer "was involved in another five-set classic in SW19, this time denied by Djokovic in three hours and 56 minutes." Afterwards, the Centre Court audience "rose to applaud, some with tears in their eyes." Rewind 24 hours, because "it was then that Petra Kvitova defeated Eugenie Bouchard in the women’s final." The scoreline "was 6-3, 6-0 and the match lasted 55 minutes." Prices for seats (according to a source) "were less than a fifth of those for the men’s final on the resale market." Viewing figures, domestic and global, "were significantly smaller." The interest as measured by Twitter "did not bear comparison." And yet Kvitova "earned the same as Djokovic in prize money." Every "right-minded person would agree that a woman should earn the same as a man for doing the same job, say in an office." But top male players "are effectively doing a different job." They "are persuading more of the public to pay through the turnstiles and on TV." Why "should they have to cede this income to female counterparts?" And "what would this mean beyond tennis?" Should top-flight female footballers, "who secure gates of a few hundred, earn the same as men, who play in front of tens of thousands and have secured multibillion-pound TV deals?" And "let us look at the reverse perspective too." Would "it not be absurd for Gisele Bündchen to give up her income to male models who earn less, just because they have the same formal job title?" (LONDON TIMES, 3/22).
